Stuff

Opinium have a new poll in the Observer today (I think it’s the only poll in the Sunday papers, at least, it seems to be the only voting intention poll). Headline voting intentions are CON 41%, LAB 37%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 6%. Fieldwork was Thursday and Friday and the full tables are here. The four point lead echoes the YouGov poll that came out on Thursday, which had toplines of CON 41%, LAB 37%, LDEM 9%, UKIP 4% (tabs.

As well as their usual trackers, the Opinium poll also had some questions on the Brexit deal and what comes next. Asked how likely they think it is that there will be a “satisfactory” deal by March 2019, 26% think it is likely, 50% think it is unlikely. Satisfactory is, of course, in the eye of the beholder – some people presumably think there will be deal, but that it will be an “unsatisfactory” one, as the next question asked what people think is the most likely outcome – 30% expect us to leave with a deal next March, 33% to leave without a deal, 16% that we will not leave in March 2019.

The poll also asked what should happen next if there is no deal, or Parliament does not approve a deal. In the event of no deal at all, 14% think there should be a general election, 23% a new referendum, 13% an extension in order to continue negotiations, and 32% that Britain should just leave without a deal. In the event that a deal is struck, but Parliament rejects it, 12% think there should be a general election, 10% a deal vs no deal referendum, 20% a deal vs remain referendum, 14% that the government should return to negotiations, 25% that Britain should just leave without a deal.

1,211 Responses to “Opinium/Observer – CON 41, LAB 37, LDEM 8”

You can see why an individual country’s budget has to be reviewed somewhere centrally if there’s a common currency involved. It would be something that all common currency members signed up to at the start.I don’t think that non-EZ countries, like the UK, are in the same monitoring process. One could argue that if you’re anti-EU and in an EZ country’s government, it might be in your political interest to submit an outrageous budget, just to have it rejected and thereby stir up just the sort of indignation that PB evinces.

Disturbing news about the existence of China’s ‘re-education’ centres that are being reported, plus attempts by the Chinese Government to pressure UK based Chinese people to not speak out by pressuring family back home.

That alongside the problems in the Yemen, with the the largest famine in living memory threatening under a Saudi backed blockade.

In this world how do we operate on anything like an ethical basis?

I know there are no easy answers, but we can’t work in an ethical vacuum either.

Caroline Flint in the Yorkshire Post saying she would support a no confidence vote if the proposal comes to Parliament. She also said up to 45 Labour MP’s could ignore their whips and support the Government if a reasonable Brexit deal is put forward. That in theory would negate the Ultra Brexiteers and avoid a no-deal scenario.

@Pete B – re Italy and the EU, I’m not quite sure of the mechanism used here, but obviously as one of the countries major creditors, the EU will have some say in budgets etc.

This is not new, and not anything that the UK doesn’t support elsewhere. We have been long term members of the IMF and the World Bank, and as such we are in part responsible for those bodies regularly imposing really quite harsh terms on recipient nations, such as forcing them to sell their public utilities to western private countries etc. You will probably have been aware of all this and complained vociferously at the time, but most Brexiters didn’t.

The Italian situation also has no relevance to the UK. The EU cannot overrule Westminster budgets.

“This is not new, and not anything that the UK doesn’t support elsewhere. We have been long term members of the IMF and the World Bank, and as such we are in part responsible for those bodies regularly imposing really quite harsh terms on recipient nations”

Indeed, as anyone who was around in our very own country in 1976 should remember.

The conclusions that you seem to draw from the Marmot report (and that’s assuming that everybody should sign up to all of the recommendations of a report produced by the Blair/Brown government) are that what we need are an essentially Corbynite series policies; higher taxes on the rich and businesses, bans on certain forms of work, more unionisation, redistribution of wealth, higher welfare and so on and so forth.

A Tory might well point to their job creation record, which is certainly a lot better than it was under Labour, and argue that by reforming benefits and pushing people into work they are fulfilling one of the fundamental recommendations of the report. Similarly, that the increase in tuition fees has allowed them to enormously increase the number of people who go to university (please note that I don’t necessarily agree with these positions).
The reason I mention immigration is because the poverty rate among the children of immigrants is 40%, as compared to 17% among the children of British citizens. A very large proportion of immigrants are in low-waged jobs towards the bottom of the income scale. Without that distortion the overall picture of income equality would be much improved, and the gig economy with its exploitative working conditions simply wouldn’t be able to function.

If you were to try to imitate the Nordic model then what you’d actually be pushing for would be higher rates of VAT, and higher taxes on lower and middle incomes (but notably not on high earners or companies), and use the money to pay for better public services.

For my part I’d like to see some of the Nordic approach, plus higher taxes on the wealth amassed by older generations through reform to NI and property taxation in order to raise funds to pay for social care, among other things. Manifest improvements to the availability and affordability of childcare would help people get into work and improve early years opportunity (which is the most important recommendation in Marmot). Liberalisation of planning and proper investment in bringing land forward for building could increase the supply of market housing available, and reform of social housing allocation is seriously overdue (social tenants actually have worse outcomes than similar households in the privately rented sector). I’d also like to see devolved government across the English regions, with assemblies (including those in the nations) getting proper tax and spending powers, and the ability to set minimum wage rates and earning thresholds for working visas.

@BANTAMS
“Caroline Flint in the Yorkshire Post saying she would support a no confidence vote if the proposal comes to Parliament. She also said up to 45 Labour MP’s could ignore their whips and support the Government if a reasonable Brexit deal is put forward. That in theory would negate the Ultra Brexiteers and avoid a no-deal scenario.”

I can see this, and free the UK from the ERG Brexit madness and actually deliver a working, sensible Brexit solution.

ALEC
“We have been long term members of the IMF and the World Bank, and as such we are in part responsible for those bodies regularly imposing really quite harsh terms on recipient nations, such as forcing them to sell their public utilities to western private countries etc.”
One wonders whether “harsh” is the right term for action enforced on sovereign states by means of financial threat or action based on debt to bodies, especially the World Bank and IMF set up by international treaty and funding.
At the heart of action enforcing privatisation and related reduction of public expenditure in Greece, for example, are political and an infringement of sovereignty in situations where the concerned government has by constitution and statute to find solutions of economic problems through its elected responsibilities, institutions and social contracts..
We rarely see clear evidence of the consequences. One instance where we did (andwhich I witnessed through involvement with the EC TACIS programme) was the demand, reinforced by World Bank consultants, that, as a matter of “strategy”, social services and social security should be removed from municipal structures and put under central bodies and control.
A recorded effect in Russia during the following decade was a reduction of male life expactancy from 65 to 58 because of the collapse of health and related care services which, whatever failings they may have had, provided models which they West might have copied, and had taken generations to develop.

This, from Robert Peston, appears to be an honest assessment of the NAO report on the UK’s no deal options:

“This report by the government’s own watchdog, the National Audit Office, can be summed up as “the prime minister’s failure to properly prepare for a no-deal Brexit has obliterated her own claim that no deal is better than a bad deal””

It has been abundantly clear for over two years already that May was absolutely dead set against a no deal exit. She, and sufficient cabinet members were sufficiently aware of the likely outcomes from this, and were never prepared to take the UK into that situation, if it could possibly be avoided.

While Brexiters took some of her speeches to indicate a willingness to face down the EU and were naive enough to actually believe ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, the more analytical and understanding among us knew all along that this was window dressing in order to create an impression of a choreography that would ensure sufficient public support for a final deal at the last moment.

This remains by some distance the most likely outcome of the process, although, as they say, nothing is agreed……

To understand Schumacher’s stance, you have to take the link to his Adam Smith essay. It is overlong and repetitive, but makes some very valid points.

Essentially, Schumacher, in a very forthright piece, advocates almost a planning free-for-all. I certainly wouldn’t – heaven help us. But so much of what he says has the ring of truth. I don’t think you have to be a red-necked and red-faced capitalist to advocate more free market influence over housing.

My take is we need regulation and a plan-based planning system, but not the level of interference that presently constipates the process.

Interestingly, both sides seem to agree that the ‘affordable’ industry is blighting delivery, which is my view. Nice to know this is gradually becoming ‘mainstream’. I might be brave enough to expound on the subject in the Dog and Ferret.

Anyway, strange that it might seem I do and I’ve been happy for them to post under my name since a few of us share a common(ish) view. IMHO it is preferable to sink “linked” accounts as linked rather than have a little “fan club” set-up but each to their own.

Since folks seem to find that “disturbing” then more recently whenever it hasn’t actually been me then I’ve said “under license” or similar.

It’s quite remarkable and comical to read the kind of the Corporate Elite, Establishment, etc, orchestrated nonsense Remain believe but if a Leaver or two post under the same name then it’s all “strange, disturbing, Russian bots”

Anyway, hols this week but in future I’ll ensure anyone posting under my name clearly states (“under license”).

As to who the “we” are then I’ve mentioned that several times but once more, since we know how bad Remainers memories are:

– A group of friends who all want a Clean Brexit.
– From a few different walks of life but mostly know each other from previous academic or professional careers (city or consultancy)
– Some have “links” to ongoing Brexit negotiations or other “access”

Thinking back though, apart from the “car” discussion which didn’t get onto the interesting areas anyway, it’s been quite a while since anyone I know bothered to post on UKPR in either my name or their own.

If people have a problem with free speech then:
– we also have “freedom to read” (ie just scroll past)
– join the Corbyn+McDonnell and get it banned :(

Roughy this the 40ish Arch-ERG we hear about and a collection of other Arch-Leave who are not formerly part of ERG.
These are CON MPs willing to publish their name! Behind that are 20-40 more of “shy” ERG folks and the growing number of CON-Remainy MPs not happy with May’s approach

Ross Thomson is SCON, not sure if any of others are. SCON have made noises suggesting a possible “block” vote on certain Brexit issues.

Obviously just being CON names so no DUP (10) and none of the LAB-Arch Leave (up to 6)

Some talk around that LAB “Caroline Flint” gang has numbers above 15. I listed the 15 a while back (all those who broke whip to formerly vote against EEA rather than simply abstain).

If anyone has a list of LAB names beyond 15 then could they post that list.

With May procrastinating then will the budget turn into a protest vote?

Instead of daft predictions I’ll just consider the HoC maths and ponder whether Caroline Flint, Gareth Snell, etc vote to support Hammond’s budget and Finance Bill to make up the numbers?

P.S. Baker has also put “traps” in the NI bill but out of time to explain that to Planet Remain folks.

One of our regular brexiteers (Colin, I think) used approvingly to post a lot of links to Der Spiegel when it ran stories critical of the EU. But I imagine stuff like this will be less palatable to our brexiteers:

The United Kingdom is currently demonstrating how a country can make a fool of itself before the eyes of the entire world. What was once the most powerful empire on earth is now a country that can’t even find its way to the door without tripping over its own feet.

@”One of our regular brexiteers (Colin, I think) used approvingly to post a lot of links to Der Spiegel when it ran stories critical of the EU. But I imagine stuff like this will be less palatable to our brexiteers:”

I haven’t dipped into Spiegel or Die Welt for a while.

I read the Jan Fleischhauer piece . Interesting to be called arrogant by a German journalist. One which WIKI informs me compared the Italian people to Francesco Schettino, the captain of the Costa Concordia.
So he certainly sticks to his stereotype-telling everyone else that they aren’t quite up to snuff. A recognisable trait in the EU zealot.

No doubt he will soon be explaining to the Italians why they can’t have fiscal sovereignty even if they do keep their Deficits below the EU SGP ceiling.

I look forward to the response of the Italian Government when he does.

Latest Ipsos Mori of C 39, L37, LD10 is in line with most polls in showing a small Con lead. It also narrows the spread of LD figures to something more reasonable – last month 6-13, this month so far 7-10.

@Trevor Warne – Nope. Still think it’s a bit weird, getting friends to post under your name and sign in. Why can’t they just post for themselves?

It’s obviously a little coordinated, otherwise you would end up with multiple Trevor Warne posts simultaneously, and so it’s obviously a campaign.

I think the view of most posters on here (I hope of all persuasions and none) is that we should post on here purely as individuals, and that operating as a coordinated group, sharing a similar outlook and thereby taking part in a coordinated campaign, is fundamentally against what most of us understand to be the spirit of the site.

Also, where you say – “Westminster should certainly start “reviewing” Scotland’s budgets given we share a single currency!” – they do, via the Barnett Formula. Indeed, the majority of Scotland’s budget is defined in Westminster, so it actually goes much further than reviewing it.

@Millie – “I don’t think you have to be a red-necked and red-faced capitalist to advocate more free market influence over housing.”

I take a somewhat different view.

If we want to interfere in the supply side of the market, which most people agree that we do, mainly to prevent urban sprawl and a planning free for all, one of the solutions is to interfere more on the demand side.

As I’ve said before, a government could readily ban foreign ownership of houses, which is a huge scourge on the London market.

We also have I believe around a million second homes (not meaning let holiday homes – just empty second homes) with lengthy waiting lists for many families to have one home, so ban second homes.

We have growing problems with Airbnb lets in many tourist hotspots, along with problems from the general holiday let market in some areas, so introduce planning restrictions on change of use from permanent residential to holiday/business.

In the Netherlands, Local Authorities can issue a notice to empty property owners and if there is no response they can seize the property and make it available for social rent.

Many shop owners are sitting on upstairs flats that are no longer used for residential purposes. Encourage or force the properties to be used for homes., etc etc.

I’m not saying all of these things are brilliant ideas, but they are ideas that we need to look at, along with many others I haven’t thought of.

The problem with many of the solutions to the housing problem is that we have some very large businesses that just want to be able to make money from building, and numerous right wing think tanks that pump out whatever propaganda big business wants government to hear.

As ever, with so many social problems, there are cheap and simple solutions available that don’t have to mean large profits to big business, if only governments would understand what power they have if they stopped listening to the vested interests that keep saying ‘you can’t do that’.

If you want to be all ‘ethical’, all you have to do is not use banks that handle oil funds from any of the big oil companies, withdraw from any pension fund that holds shares in oil companies, not use any petro-chemical products or plastics unless guarenteed as ‘Saudi oil free’ and not buy anything made in China or containing chinese-made components.

Other than that, there’s no such thing as ethics in a consumer-driven economy, no matter how much the liberals bleat.

There will be some minor adjustments made by the western world just to be seen to be doing something that in reality will have little effect on anything at all.

@AL URQA – there will be no hard border between the Republic and any part of the UK, by land or sea, on the UK side. That, no matter how much you quibble, is a fact.

On land, the RoI/UK (NI) border is covered in the Withdrawal Act which – whether you like the idea or not, is the law of the land. At sea 9ie inter-port) the same situation applies and was publicly re-affirmed by Brexit minister Chris Heaton-Harris MP during a very recent and very high profile visit to Holyhead – second busiest ferry port in the UK.

This position is part of the problem in the EU’s eyes in that the only party that will enforce any form of border is the EU, on the Republic’s side and in flat contradiction to the repeatedly stated position of Varadkar, who yet again the other day stated on TV that he will not allow a hard border in Ireland.

I have no idea who the other 30 are, I think maybe Caroline Flint is overstating a touch. Many Labour MPs have parroted the leader in saying Labour will vote for a sensible deal but that is just stating the obvious and should not be taken as indicating as a willingness to break the whip over this.

Also, Snell, Flint etc will not support a Tory budget – absolutely no chance.

The end of days if 64% of Conservative supporters don’t expect a good deal.
Wonder if the other figure, where 78% expect a bad deal will impact on VI? Or, perhaps more pertinently whether it will impact on a second referundum figures?

Andy: “there will be no hard border between the Republic and any part of the UK, by land or sea, on the UK side. That, no matter how much you quibble, is a fact.

Facts have consequences:

Business leaders pointed out if there was a free-for-all with no checks, Northern Ireland would turn into a smuggler’s paradise, not just for gangs trading south to north but gangs wanted to sell goods to mainland Britain…..

….Billington said the concern was that while there were only three commodities with price differentials in the current regime, once Britain left the EU there could be many more.

“If you create 30 product groups you will create a much larger set of opportunities. The bigger the opportunities the more players that move into the market,” he said.

PSNI and Gardaí operations show that criminals from all over the world are using Ireland as a potential gateway into the UK including gangs from Russia, Lithuania, Africa and Asia.

“We have growing problems with Airbnb lets in many tourist hotspots, along with problems from the general holiday let market in some areas, so introduce planning restrictions on change of use from permanent residential to holiday/business.”

At stage 2 of The Planning (Scotland) Bill at Holyrood, Andy Wightman’s (SGP) amendment has been accepted so that councils will be able to control the conversion of homes to short term lets.

Down here in Drecklyland we have a big problem with Airbnb, the big problem is a lot of homeowners are holiday letting all or part of their own properties. They are undercutting genuine businesses and are able to do so because they aren’t declaring their earnings to HMRC. It can add up to a tidy sum.

Schumacher’s piece certainly contained a lot of claptrap, but he has some points about how heavily the dead hand of the state weighs upon the delivery of housing. My take has always been that a better conceived, de-risked planning process could speed up housebuilding, and one of the major ways to do this would be to simplify the system of planning gain. Certainly, affordable housing requirements are something like getting the crew of the titanic to focus their efforts on designating a few first class deckchairs for a handful of the third class passengers. The emphasis really needs to be on housing delivery, and using captured planning gain (which need not be reduced, quite the opposite) to free up land or build themselves and thereby increase the rate of that delivery, rather than on providing a handful of additional heavily subsidised properties to a lucky few.

AL URQA

Good lord, you’re not going to start banging on again about people moving across the Irish border and have to have the Common Travel Area explained to you for the hundredth time, are you?

I seem to remember the Irish border was always a smugglers paradise being in or out the EU is not going to change that fact, course it suits the remainers to emphasise it now.
But if what you say is correct about human trafficking then it’s obvious being in the EU has little effect on border security.
Of course if the U.K. is forced into a high tech solution along the border by a no deal then hopefully things will improve.

Don’t think smuggling is the issue in reality although the potential exists and would be greater with differential tariffs.
The genuine concern, I believe, is about delays in legal goods crossing borders.